Thumbnail Handout: Accountability and Ethics
“Accountability” and “Ethics”: definitions and differences
Accountability

To understand our obligation to answer for both our behavior and our
performance. Specifically, accountability means answering for our methods of
receiving and allocating resources, the manner in which we manage our
organizations generally, and the rationale for decisions we make. And, at
minimum, accountability mandates that actions must conform to the law. (1)

Refers to management in both public and nonprofit organizations, and derives
from two important values in those sectors: openness and trust.

Kinds of accountability: professional, legal, bureaucratic, political. Focus
here: professional accountability. In simplest form, “professional
accountability” refers to the idea that “you should do only that which could be
explained before a committee of your peers”. (2) All professions (physicians,
engineers, architects, professors, and lawyers) have standards which should,
and usually do, guide action, and these standards tend to be part of the
socialization professionals encounter in the educational and training process.

To properly define ethics, we first must understand the meaning of “morality”
which Robert and Janet Denhardt of the Arizona State University’s Public
Administration program define as “those practices and activities that are
considered right and wrong; it is also concerned with the values those
practices reflect and the rules through which they are carried out within a
given setting”. (3) Moral and, hence, ethical action is “action that is consistent
with [our] morality – that which expresses [our] most basic commitments
about what is right and what is wrong.” (4)

“Ethics is concerned with the process by which we clarify what is right and
wrong and by which we act on what we take to be right; ethics involves the
use of reason in determining a proper course of action. Ethics is the search
for moral standards” (5)
Ethics
In very simple terms, then, consider accountability as emerging from the outside
environment; and ethics, as emerging from inside the individual.
Thumbnail Handout: Ethical Relativism

Some Relativists: (or people accused of relativism by their critics): Ludwig
Wittgenstein, Thomas Kuhn, Richard Rorty, Michel Foucault, Jacques
Derrida.

Definition: The belief that there is no single ethical standard that applies to
all people at all times. Relativists believe that different societies have
different standards and there is no one universal standard that applies to
everybody.

Fundamentally, Relativist ethical theories “…reject any ethical rule [seen
as] universal or absolute, [and] assert that ethical standards are grounded
only in social customer, and that there is no objective way to assess the
validity of ethical principles.” And, while there are a number of kinds of
relativism, they all share these two features: a) They all assert that one
thing (e.g., moral values, beauty, knowledge, meaning) is relative to some
particular framework or standpoint; for example, a culture, an era…a
language.” In short, ethics must be seen as contextual; and b) “They all
deny that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.” (6)
Thumbnail Handout: Teleology/Utilitarianism
Best-known Utilitarians: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
A group of ethical theories which say “let the end justify the means.”
Specifically, these theories say that choices of right and wrong should be
determined solely by the consequences, or outcomes, of choosing one policy or
action over another.
Jeremy Bentham outlines the basis for all utilitarian theories in his “Principle of
Utility”. Specifically, the Utility Principle:
1. recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life; 2.
approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or
pleasure (i.e., the consequences) brought about by the action; 3. equates good
with pleasure and evil with pain; and 4. asserts that pleasure and pain can be
quantified and, therefore, measured. (7)
John Stuart Mill takes a different approach from Bentham, by emphasizing that:
1. It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to
utilitarianism; 2. Bentham’s calculus is unreasonable. That is, qualities such as
pleasure and pain cannot be quantified; and 3. Utilitarianism refers to ‘the
Greatest Happiness Principle” – it seeks to promote people’s capability of
achieving happiness for the greatest number of people. (8)
Three types of Utilitarianism:
1. “Act” Utilitarianism: Bentham’s Principle of Utility can be applied directly to
each individual’s act, and it then judges what the consequences to the larger
society would be if that individual performed that single act just once. (9)
2. “General” Utilitarianism: Takes “Act” Utilitarianism a step further. Say the
Principle of Utility judges what the effect on society as a whole would be if
everybody acted in the same way under the same circumstances or in the same
situation.
3. Rule Utilitarianism: Says that an ethical rule that would likely have the most
benefit for society as a whole should be applied – even if any, single individual
application of the rule might have some negative consequences on occasion.
Hence, Utilitarianism “involves measuring and calculating the relative benefits for
all members of a society of each act or behavior and then choosing the act or
behavior that creates the greatest good for the aggregate.” (10)Focus is on
“moral value or goodness rather than on moral duties or obligations. An action’s
consequences (what is good) are more important than moral obligations (what is
right). (11) “In short, “the greatest good for the greatest number”.
Thumbnail Handout: Deontology/Kantianism
(Sometimes called “duty-based” ethics)
Most famous deontologist: Immanuel Kant
These folks say, “It’s the principle of the thing.” More specifically, they say that “rules
are the basis of morality.” Kant also says “we are rational creatures because we have
the capacity to let rationality govern our actions; not because we always act rationally
(author emphasis).” (12)
Focus of these theories: “moral duties or obligations rather than on moral value or
goodness (or on consequences, like Utilitarianism claims). Intention (what Kant calls the
maxim of one’s action) plays a significant role in determining whether an act is ethical.”
(13)
Kant’s “Categorical Imperative”: Says that the most important aspect of any principle
(whether math, physics, or anything else) is consistency and, for Kant, there is one
overriding rule (i.e., the Categorical Imperative): Act only on that maxim [i.e., only with
the intention] whereby you can at the same time will (meaning “rational willing; not mere
wishing) that it should become universal law.” He refined that later to say that “Act so
that you treat humanity, whether your own person or that of another, as an end and
never as a means only.” In short, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.” (14)
Thumbnail Handout: The Rights Ethic
(Sometimes called “Liberal Ethics”)
Refers to the idea that “people have fundamental rights. Rights are entitlements to
something. Ethical persons recognize the duty to protect the rights of others.
Fundamental human rights may be abridged only for compelling reasons that benefit
society. These rights generally include freedoms [e.g., speech]. The decision maker
evaluates actions based on whether they deprive a person of a right that must be
respected”. (15)
Fundamentally, the view here is that “the rights of individuals override the needs of
groups or societies.” The theory also “emphasizes individual autonomy and a right to
privacy”. (16)
Thumbnail Handout: Ethics of The Common Good
Early Common Good Ethicists: Ancient Greeks (Plato, Aristotle, Cicero).
More contemporary: John Rawls who, in his Theory of Justice, defines the common
good as “certain general conditions that are…equally to everyone’s advantage”. (17)
The long “common good” tradition in Roman Catholicism defines it as “the sum of
those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members
relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.” (18)
Scholars at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at the University of Santa Clara
say the common good “consists primarily of having the social systems, institutions
and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people.”
(19)
The Markkula Center scholars note that the common good “does not just happen.
Establishing and maintaining the common good require the cooperative efforts of
some, often of many, people.” (20)
To that point, scholars in the Center for Social Concerns at the University of Notre
Dame introduce the idea of “virtue of solidarity”, and quote Pope John Paul II, who
said that solidarity “is not only a virtue to be enacted by individual persons one at a
time. It must also be expressed in the economic, cultural, political, and religious
institutions that shape society”. (21)
Hence, continues John Paul II, the participation of everyone in society “is the
grounds for the common good. As human interdependence grows through out the
world, the common good ‘today takes on an increasingly universal complexion and
consequently involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race.’
Individual rights need to be experienced within the context of promotion of the
common good”. Moreover, “the duty of all is to make the sacrifices necessary so that
those who are marginalized can also become active participants”. (22)
References
(1) Jeavons, Thomas H. 2005. “Ethical Nonprofit Management”. In Robert D. Herman
& Associates. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2nd. Edition (pp. 204-229).
(2) Greene, Jeffrey D. 2005. Public Administration in the New Century. Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
(3) Denhardt, Robert B., and Janet V. Denhardt. 2006. Public Administration: An
Action Orientation. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. (5th Edition)
(4) DeGeorge, Richard T. 1982. Business Ethics. NY:Macmillan.
(5) Denhardt and Denhardt, p. 128.
(6) “Relativism”. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Retrieved April 11, 2007)
http://www.lep.utm.edu/r/relativi.html and Aaby, Anthony. “Ethics: Survey and
Observations”. (Retrieved April 11, 2007)
http://cs.wwc.edu/~aabyan/Ethics/survey/html.
(7) “Utilitarian Theories”. (Retrieved April 11, 2007)
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect9.html
(8) Ibid.
(9) Grobman, Gary M. 2004. An Introduction to the Nonprofit Sector. Harrisburg PA:
White Hat Communications (p. 108).
(10) Fox, Charles J. 1994. “The Use of Philosophy in Administrative Ethics. In Terry
Cooper (Ed.). Handbook of Administrative Ethics. NY: Marcel Decker (p. 108).
(11) Aaby, Anthony. “Ethics: Survey and Observations”. (Retrieved April 11, 2007)
http://cs.wwc.edu/~aabyan/Ethics/survey/html.
(12) “Kant’s Ethical Theory”. (Retrieved April 11, 2007).
http://brindedcow.umd.edu/140/kant.html
(13) Aaby.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Greene, pp. 376-377.
(16) Grobman, p. 111.
(17) “The Common Good”. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University.
(Retrieved April 23, 2007)
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decisions/commongood.html
(18) Ibid.
(19) Thomas, Margaret Orr. 2005. “Ethics of the Common Good”. (Retrieved April 19,
(2007) http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interregilious//cd46-08.html
(20) “An Introduction to the Principles of Catholic Social Thought: The Common
Good”. Center for Social Concerns. University of Notre Dame (Retrieved April 23,
2007) http://centerforsocialconcerns.ned.edu/mission/cst/cst1.shtml
(21) Ibid.
(22) Ibid.